We've hashed over the Bangor Daily News' "negative" coverage, here is the
Wed. Apr. 16 column by Andrew Neff on this subject.  Discuss.
 
MESSEGNGER OFTEN BLAMED FOR BAD NEWS
 
"Nobody likes the man who brings bad news."
                        -- Sophocles
 
Sophocles would have made a fine journalist.  In one sentence, he
summariezes botht eh business and the way many people perceive it.
 
As a sports journalist, I've had the good fortune to witness and report on
a lot of exciting and positive events and stories.  I've also written my
share of what many people would refer to as "negative" stories.
 
Contrary to popular belief, most journalists I know do not delight in
reporting all controversial, disturbing, and/or joyless stories.
 
Given the choice of reporting on a local college program landing a prized
recruit or the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of a local coach,
most would opt for the recruit story.
 
But journalists don't always get to choose their stories, just like people
don't always get to choose their lots in life.
 
The bottom line is newspaper journalists are here to report the news.
That's NEWS: as in the good kind, the bad, they ugly... and the
indifferent.  The same is true whether you cover sports, business, politics
or the weather.
 
Good journalists don't ignore news, and they don't make it, but they are
supposed to relay it.
 
Sometimes, they even get a chance to comment on news.  This column is a
good example of that.  But many people mistakenly equate items in columns
like SOUND OFF with hard news stories.  They're not the same.  Columns
usually feature the writer's commentary or opinions.  News stories should
be devoid of both.
 
In recent weeks, I've been reminded of the misconceptions readers form when
they read a story which provokes a strong reaction, be it outrage or
agreement.
 
A story is written -- about a well-known athlete involved with drugs, or
several high school athletes nder suspension for breaking team rules, or a
local coach who has come under fire -- and the writer is somehow indirectly
responsible.
 
Would it be better if the stories like these went unreported?  Some might
say yes, but they would be missing the fact that an informed public is
better
[blank line here]
fully ignorant [sic].
 
Would that coach's supporters rather read about his plight after he has
been dismissed?  Is it preferable to learn about the athlete's drug problem
after he dies from an overdose?  Not hardly.
 
If all the messengers were shot, the silence would be deafening.
 
-- Andrew Neff, BDN